Minimum wage

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesATyler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JamesATyler

Guest
Honestly, I have never looked into the two sides of the argument concerning whether it should be raised or not, until recently. I do not know the economical fine points of the argument and I cannot verify what experts say on either side when they go into so much detail, yet. But I am going to try to learn about this the best that I can. This is a social justice issue, in my view, as well as an economical one. Let me explain my understanding of the situation and why I think some groups are misleading people by saying the minimum wage should not rise. I don’t know if it is intentional. In most cases, probably not, but rather I think some people are confused. (or I am)

What I hear often, and I have asked people directly, what their view is on the issue, and usually I hear, “If minimum wage goes up, then the cost of everything goes up.” So the conclusion of course is that paying unskilled labor more money is bad for them, bad for the employer (obviously), and bad for the whole world in general. But wouldn’t the same be true of all raises? If everyone else is getting substantial raises every year, doesn’t that drive up the cost of goods and services as well? Are these people trying to make me believe that every single worker in America can receive substantial raises every year but if we give unskilled labor a substantial raise the whole system will break down? This proposition is incredibly fishy to me.

Let me look at this another way. Apparently, minimum wage workers comprise about 3 million of the work force. In another study (thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/24/573671/one-in-four-private-sector-workers-earn-less-than-10-an-hour/) about 1 in four private sector workers make less than 10 dollars an hour. So raising the minimum wage would affect 1/4th of the work force. Ok, I can see why this would have a large effect on the economy. But, apparently, a small number of industries have people with a median wage of less than 10 dollars an hour.

sort by median hourly wage to see that the vast majority of industries already pay their workers more than 10 dollars an hour.

bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#(4

So this means that these few industries at the bottom of the list will be the ones most directly affected by a minimum wage increase as they will have to directly raise the prices of their goods and services to compensate for the higher wage of their labor force. However, I assume there would be a ripple effect through each industry beginning with greater strength with those who make the least over 10 dollars an hour and ending with the least strength with those who make the most per hour. Why? Because someone who makes 11 dollars an hour with find themselves paying more for the directly affected services and yet do not have much disposable income. While a brain surgeon, who makes a large wage, and has a much higher disposable income will not feel affected nearly as much. So, I am inclined to believe that their will be a push for higher wages beginning at the bottom, as people try to compensate. However, we can assume that even if the minimum wage is not increased, all of the workers in these industries will be asking for raises anyway, and they will get them. The brain surgeon will make more next year regardless, and, apparently, as you go up in wages, the raises can be quite good. The brain surgeon for instance will not get a meager 2 dollar an hour raise. So this accounts for the growing disparity that I keep hearing about. This is the disparity between those receiving massive raises at the top and those at the bottom making minimum wage who cannot get 2 more dollars an hour. And this disparity will grow.

What does this portend? Obviously, the cost of those raises as you go up the industry ladder translate into higher costs for those services and goods. A minimum wage earner cannot directly afford the services of a brain surgeon or many other services available. So they must turn to the government. Our government (at this time) does two main things, according to the philosophies of our two main parties. Republicans, push for the worker to pull himself up by his bootstraps, get an education, and move up the ladder. A fine philosophy and I hope we don’t lose that in this country. The democrats, try to advocate for the poor, by asking employers to pay more for these unskilled workers. Also a fine role. Let me explain myself.

(cont)
 
Who do these unskilled (and low skilled) workers provide services for? In part they provide services to each other. But, I have already learned that they comprise only 1/4th of the work force. The other 3/4ths also use their services. I have learned that the bulk of the purchasing power in the country is held by a small percentage of people in this country. And this purchasing power trickles down. All of these other people with higher wages have a demand for unskilled labor. When they go into a retail store, the are mighty sore if they cannot get good customer service. When they buy a Big Mac, they are happy to be able to go through the drive through instead of having to go into the kitchen and make the Big Mac themselves. The brain surgeon, values his time too highly to spend a couple of hours each day helping to clean the hospital. How much does he value those two hours? Truthfully, he probably values those two hours more than what the janitor gets paid to do the work. So it comes down to a matter of business.

The demand for low wage earners is generated by those that utilize the services that the industries that employ them provide. Mostly the other 3/4ths of the workforce. They are the bulk of the market because they have the bulk of the capital. I believe that this market can “bear” the cost of these “low paid worker” services even if these industries charged more. We know that “What the market can bear” is a cornerstone of capitalism. So why don’t they get paid more? Why doesn’t capitalism work in the case of unskilled workers? I have learned that it is mainly because of competition. A pool of 20 retail stores are often selling comparable merchandise. The store with the lower prices will attract the customers. This means stores must run as efficiently as possible with as little overhead as possible. Wages is a part of that. If one worker demands a higher wage and refuses to work, then another worker can be hired to replace him. There are two answers to this, as far as I have learned. Unions or government. Both of these entities fill the role of advocating for higher wages. Unskilled labor has no union so it is up to the government to force particular industries to pay higher wages to an indispensable (pre-complete-labor-automation) segment of the workforce. This is the role that the democrats seem to fill, in the absence of an organized union of unskilled and low skilled workers.

The disparity between wealthy and poor is the main problem. It is the disparity that causes so many high cost services to become out of reach of the bottom of the ladder. Couple that with the maxim “what the market can bear” means that many industries can perpetuate themselves without the need for the small amount of capital that the bottom of the ladder has. That is fine for many things, like, for instance, an apple I-pod. So what if you can’t afford one. Get a college education, right? But what about health care. The price for health services is not based on what minimum wage earners can afford. It is based on what middle class Americans can afford and up to what very wealthy people can afford. As the ladder from bottom to top gets longer and longer, millions of Americans get priced out. Who do they appeal to? Government. In conclusion, it is the disparity between rich and poor that leads a government that cares about the poor people to adopt socialist mechanics. Welfare, Medicaid, Obama Care, Social Security, Food Stamps, etc. When competition practically guarantees that wages for the least paid will not rise, then government must step in to force wealthier people to pay more for those services. Which, as I said, I believe they can bear.

So that is the way I feel about the issue right now but I thought I would post it here because there are so many intelligent and thoughtful people that visit this forum. Surely, some of you have arrived at the opposite conclusion. What do you think I am failing to see? Why shouldn’t unskilled workers demand more money from people who can afford to pay it and are not inclined to do the labor themselves? Why should unskilled workers believe that labor is worth very little when it is known that “time is money” and labor takes time. Time that wealthy people would be willing to pay more for. Why should low paid workers believe it when someone tells them, “If I pay you more money you will end up poorer or exactly the same”. Why should low paid workers sit back and watch as other Americans get yearly raises from their employers but do nothing to force their own employers to pay more for labor? Anyways, without good answers for these kinds of questions, I will have to give my support to the democrats in respect to labor wages.
 
The people who object the loudest to raising the minimum wage are the same ones who have no objections to the CEO’s of those same companies making hundreds to thousands of times more money than their workers. And the fact is, CEO’s are raking in larger and larger portions of the pie, while their workers are forced to get by on less and less.

In the 1970’s CEO’s made an average of 40 times more than their workers. Now the average CEO makes hundreds of times more! This is nothing more than unbridled greed. How much money do these people need? How big do their bonuses have to be? Not big enough, apparently, until they have everything.

The complainers of “Oh, they can’t raise minimum wage or we’ll all have to pay more for our burgers and stuff!” really should be saying, “Why are you CEO’s making an obscene amount of money on the backs of your workers? Money that would take you a thousand years to spend?!”

The money to make up the raises to low-wage workers should not have to come out of the pockets of the consumers. It should come out of the bulging portfolios of their greedy executives.
 
There is no disagreement over the fact that, according to standard classical economic theory, the minimum wage and unionization (which is just another way to raise wages) have disemployment effects. You raise the price of something and you’ll sell less of it. Basic supply and demand. In the theoretical world of perfect competition and zero transaction costs, no min wage or unionization would be the economically optimal policy.

In reality, the evidence is mixed. Some studies have shown no disemployment effect. One theory is that employers are actually making extraordinary profits and therefore raising wages, whether through a min wage or unionization, only cuts into profits. I find this highly unlikely. Fast food is a competitive business. Profit margins are razor thin. An alternative theory is that jobs are sticky. Existing businesses might be forced to pay higher wages but the higher wages would deter new businesses from hiring in the first place. I find that much more plausible.

But then do we just leave the working poor to their own devices? No. Instead of a min wage, we should subsidize their wages. The earned income tax credit should be expanded. Here’s the political trade-off: In exchange for abolishing the min wage and mandatory union dues, certain corporate tax goodies are abolished to pay for expanding the EITC. In particular, the carried interest treatment and health insurance deduction can be cut or eliminated.
 
The money to make up the raises to low-wage workers should not have to come out of the pockets of the consumers. It should come out of the bulging portfolios of their greedy executives.
The US has an exceptionally skewed distribution of wealth (and incomes). The very wealthy are able to amass an extraordinary proportion of the nation’s wealth, yet large numbers of US citizens seem to think this is one of those things that “makes America so great”. [The skewed distribution continues to worsen.]

Until the prevailing thinking in your society changes to seek out a distribution of wealth that aims to respect the needs of all, rather than simply rewarding the most capable and the most fortunate, this situation will not change.
 
Possibly the question is whether a person can survive working 40 hours on the basic wage. If not it is too low. In Australia the minimum wage is 12.5 dollars (Aust.) an hour. Prices are high here as the population is small and transport costs are high. However our standard of living for a large proportion of our population is reasonable.
In America I noticed that a lot of people would not survive without tipping which is unheard of here. So they may balance out, I don’t know. But I would personally be happier to go to the bank for a mortgage with a set wage rather than suggest to my banker that my paltry salary is often lifted through the gratuities of strangers.
Many people I met had two jobs to make do. I saw a lot of surprising dirt poor poverty in the States that was not as obvious in Europe or the UK.
Thus from this simplistic analysis I think the American min. wage should be lifted.
 
The Federal Minimum Wage should be adjusted to the region of the country which has the absolute lowest cost of living. Local governments can raise it to suit their needs.

I don’t think much change is needed.
 
Possibly the question is whether a person can survive working 40 hours on the basic wage. If not it is too low. In Australia the minimum wage is 12.5 dollars (Aust.) an hour. Prices are high here as the population is small and transport costs are high. However our standard of living for a large proportion of our population is reasonable.
In America I noticed that a lot of people would not survive without tipping which is unheard of here. So they may balance out, I don’t know. But I would personally be happier to go to the bank for a mortgage with a set wage rather than suggest to my banker that my paltry salary is often lifted through the gratuities of strangers.
Many people I met had two jobs to make do. I saw a lot of surprising dirt poor poverty in the States that was not as obvious in Europe or the UK.
Thus from this simplistic analysis I think the American min. wage should be lifted.
The wage law for those receiving tips are governed by a completely different set of rules in the US. So, the “minimum wage” fight amongst fast food workers has no bearing on that. Fast food workers are not typically tipped employees.

dol.gov/whd/state/tipped.htm#foot8

The law also varies significantly for all of agriculture:

dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs12.htm
 
What will happen in these jobs is what has happened in other unskilled job areas, automation and robotics. If the job itself does not justify paying $15/hour (see link below for jobs that pay $15 hours) and the government tries to force employers to pay that, then those jobs will be replaced.

After all, the argument of those picketing for $15/hour is not that they are underpaid due to the jobs requiring a certain level of skill. Their argument is they should get $15/hour “because”-- because they “deserve” it. Ok, well, you “deserve” it, but the economics of the job, the skills required to do the job, the supply of people available for the job do not justify $15/hour for the job. So, the government will step in and require $15/hour (or whatever amount).

So, these industries are already developing robotic assembly of food in restaurant, and kiosks and iPhone apps for ordering your food and paying (i.e. self checkout already present in grocery stores).

What will happen is that instead of a fast food restaurant employing 30 p/t high school kids and 10 career fast food workers making $7.00/hr and a couple of managers/assistant managers, it will employ 10 p/t high school kids and 1 career fast food worker at $15/hour, plus a couple of managers (who are salaried). Because that’s all they will need once automation is fully integrated.

Automation of these jobs is not far off. It’s already happened in many other fields.

Jobs currently paying $15/hour:

theworkbuzz.com/find-the-job/15-jobs-that-pay-15-an-hour/

Yes, people need to be paid a living wage. But, legislating it has other consequences, mostly automation and off-shoring. Those jobs that cannot be off-shored are automated. We’ve seen the trend for 40 years, and the cost of robotics is coming down dramatically so expect to see more of it. For example, robotics in the dairy industry is becoming mainstream. Robotic milking machines are going to replace a lot of farm labor once the costs come down a little.
 
What will happen in these jobs is what has happened in other unskilled job areas, automation and robotics. If the job itself does not justify paying $15/hour (see link below for jobs that pay $15 hours) and the government tries to force employers to pay that, then those jobs will be replaced.

After all, the argument of those picketing for $15/hour is not that they are underpaid due to the jobs requiring a certain level of skill. Their argument is they should get $15/hour “because”-- because they “deserve” it. Ok, well, you “deserve” it, but the economics of the job, the skills required to do the job, the supply of people available for the job do not justify $15/hour for the job. So, the government will step in and require $15/hour (or whatever amount).

So, these industries are already developing robotic assembly of food in restaurant, and kiosks and iPhone apps for ordering your food and paying (i.e. self checkout already present in grocery stores).

What will happen is that instead of a fast food restaurant employing 30 p/t high school kids and 10 career fast food workers making $7.00/hr and a couple of managers/assistant managers, it will employ 10 p/t high school kids and 1 career fast food worker at $15/hour, plus a couple of managers (who are salaried). Because that’s all they will need once automation is fully integrated.

Automation of these jobs is not far off. It’s already happened in many other fields.

Jobs currently paying $15/hour:

theworkbuzz.com/find-the-job/15-jobs-that-pay-15-an-hour/

Yes, people need to be paid a living wage. But, legislating it has other consequences, mostly automation and off-shoring. Those jobs that cannot be off-shored are automated. We’ve seen the trend for 40 years, and the cost of robotics is coming down dramatically so expect to see more of it. For example, robotics in the dairy industry is becoming mainstream. Robotic milking machines are going to replace a lot of farm labor once the costs come down a little.
 
What will happen in these jobs is what has happened in other unskilled job areas, automation and robotics. If the job itself does not justify paying $15/hour (see link below for jobs that pay $15 hours) and the government tries to force employers to pay that, then those jobs will be replaced.

After all, the argument of those picketing for $15/hour is not that they are underpaid due to the jobs requiring a certain level of skill. Their argument is they should get $15/hour “because”-- because they “deserve” it. Ok, well, you “deserve” it, but the economics of the job, the skills required to do the job, the supply of people available for the job do not justify $15/hour for the job. So, the government will step in and require $15/hour (or whatever amount).

So, these industries are already developing robotic assembly of food in restaurant, and kiosks and iPhone apps for ordering your food and paying (i.e. self checkout already present in grocery stores).

What will happen is that instead of a fast food restaurant employing 30 p/t high school kids and 10 career fast food workers making $7.00/hr and a couple of managers/assistant managers, it will employ 10 p/t high school kids and 1 career fast food worker at $15/hour, plus a couple of managers (who are salaried). Because that’s all they will need once automation is fully integrated.

I disagree. It won’t be high school kids-- an employer paying $15.00 an hour will look for elderly retired, or young adults who are traditionally far more reliable than high school kids. Who will have greater availability and better work habits with work experience. A high minimum wage becomes a barrier to entry-level workers. Used to be all the minimum wage jobs were that first step into the work force, high school/college kids working part time for extra cash, save money for or spend money on college. They were not filled by folks dependent on the income for total support. I heard a guy running a plumbing company who said he’ll no longer have apprentices, can’t afford them at that rate. For 15.00 an hour he needs folks who will provide return on the wages, not be taking a slight loss as he trains them up assisting other folks. The business model behind all these fast food places was based on a mutually beneficial arrangement. Business owners being willing to deal with entry-level workers with varying schedules and reliability who were willing to work cheaper since they weren’t looking for full time work, or to support even themselves much less a family.
Automation of these jobs is not far off. It’s already happened in many other fields.

Jobs currently paying $15/hour:

theworkbuzz.com/find-the-job/15-jobs-that-pay-15-an-hour/

Yes, people need to be paid a living wage. But, legislating it has other consequences, mostly automation and off-shoring. Those jobs that cannot be off-shored are automated. We’ve seen the trend for 40 years, and the cost of robotics is coming down dramatically so expect to see more of it. For example, robotics in the dairy industry is becoming mainstream. Robotic milking machines are going to replace a lot of farm labor once the costs come down a little.
 


Republicans, push for the worker to pull himself up by his bootstraps, get an education, and move up the ladder. A fine philosophy and I hope we don’t lose that in this country. The democrats, try to advocate for the poor, by asking employers to pay more for these unskilled workers. Also a fine role. Let me explain myself.

(cont)
In terms of economics Republicans and democrats are pretty much Pepsi and Coke. They are two companies/organizations providing a similar product and trying to get the most market share. Their loyalty, like any organization, is first and foremost the organiziation itself-it’s continued existence or increase. Hence they’re both pushing pretty much the same things. Illegal immigration is being pushed by both parties and runs counter to what you state as the supposed goals, it certainly makes it harder for folks to compete and pull themselves up, it acts to depress wages for all the unskilled workers. They all take money from the same folks, and they’ve both cooperated in bailouts of their buddies, subsidizing their buddies, picking winners and losers in the market that they funnel taxpayer money to.

This cronyism is one of the reasons that CEO pay has risen so dramatically. It isn’t what you know, its who you know. CEOs connected to the government can assure the government will protect them, and insulate their share-holders from the negative consequences of bad decisions. That creates value to the shareholder they’re willing to pay for. Getting laws written giving their company an edge in the market means they don’t have to be as competitive. Force tighter competition and the CEO pay starts to become a target for savings.

Do not fool yourself into thinking there is any guiding philosophy differentiating the parties from each other in the way you’ve described. There isn’t. Democrats protect big businesses every bit as much as Republicans. Republicans will push for any initiatives they think will garner them votes- regardless it’s affect on the ability for folks to pull themselves up.
 
The current minimum wage is only sustainable as long as the US government is willing to subsidize businesses paying their employees below the cost of living. Many of the people making minimum wage could not survive if they were not getting handouts from the government. Raising minimum wage to the point that people can actually survive on it without working 80 hours a week will reduce the number of people getting handouts from the government. Even conservatives are starting to support it as they realize that this means the government would be giving fewer people handouts and less handouts over all.

Yes, it is true that according to the CBO less than 19% of the wage increase will go to families making below the federal poverty line however in much of the country there is no way you can live off of the federal poverty line without the government giving you money. The nationwide median monthly rent for a one bedroom studio apartment is ~$770 which is 4/5th of the poverty line for one person, you can’t live like that. Even if you make double the poverty line (2000 hours a year at $11.67) you still would have rent making up 2/5th of your budget.

What percentage of the people making the minimum wage are teenagers working part time? 12%, that certainly isn’t the majority or even close to it. What percentage are teenagers working any amount? 20%, still not the majority or even close to it.
 
It’s better to be employed at a low wage than not employed at all. Maybe you don’t believe there is a significant disemployment effect but you then need to explain why you believe raising the price of something doesn’t affect the demand curve. Otherwise, you’re basing your position on pure fantasy.

As for who earns the minimum wage, half are under 25 and a third belong to households that earn more than the national median ($60,000). If your goal is to help the poor, the min wage is a very inefficient way to do it. It helps the not-poor and does not help the unemployed at all.
 
Possibly the question is whether a person can survive working 40 hours on the basic wage. If not it is too low. In Australia the minimum wage is 12.5 dollars (Aust.) an hour. Prices are high here as the population is small and transport costs are high. However our standard of living for a large proportion of our population is reasonable.
In America I noticed that a lot of people would not survive without tipping which is unheard of here. So they may balance out, I don’t know. But I would personally be happier to go to the bank for a mortgage with a set wage rather than suggest to my banker that my paltry salary is often lifted through the gratuities of strangers.
Many people I met had two jobs to make do. I saw a lot of surprising dirt poor poverty in the States that was not as obvious in Europe or the UK.
Thus from this simplistic analysis I think the American min. wage should be lifted.
In most parts of the US, a** person** can survive working 40 hours a week on the minimum wage. BUT not if he/she expects to have the same standard of living as a person who has a mid-level** skilled **labor job. In decades past, a person starting out (those for whom the MINIMUM wage is intended) would be either living at home or sharing an apartment/house with roommates, not eating out often, not have a car but use public transportation (or walk/ride a bike) to get to work, not buy a lot of new clothes, not have cable TV or a smart phone. This lifestyle was considered perfectly normal 25 years ago and is how I and most of my peers started out.

Those proposing a large increase in the minimum wage (to $15/hour or more) often propose it as an equivalent for a living wage to support a family (family of 4 is often used as the standard). They don’t want to “start out” at all but jump right into the middle.
 
The current minimum wage is only sustainable as long as the US government is willing to subsidize businesses paying their employees below the cost of living. Many of the people making minimum wage could not survive if they were not getting handouts from the government. Raising minimum wage to the point that people can actually survive on it without working 80 hours a week will reduce the number of people getting handouts from the government. Even conservatives are starting to support it as they realize that this means the government would be giving fewer people handouts and less handouts over all.

Yes, it is true that according to the CBO less than 19% of the wage increase will go to families making below the federal poverty line however in much of the country there is no way you can live off of the federal poverty line without the government giving you money. The nationwide median monthly rent for a one bedroom studio apartment is ~$770 which is 4/5th of the poverty line for one person, you can’t live like that. Even if you make double the poverty line (2000 hours a year at $11.67) you still would have rent making up 2/5th of your budget.

What percentage of the people making the minimum wage are teenagers working part time? 12%, that certainly isn’t the majority or even close to it. What percentage are teenagers working any amount? 20%, still not the majority or even close to it.
Yup!

People working full times jobs are called lazy freeloaders when they can’t get by without government support. Many employers and schedules have made getting a second job next to impossible, many minimum wage jobs have no regular schedule. Days and hours are changed weekly with little to no advance notice, trying to get two jobs to coincide with such erratic schedules isn’t possible.

Jobs are taken overseas, sure the investors make more money, but then they grouse about having to pay taxes to provide services to the people who’s jobs they sent overseas. Well, they could have kept their factories here, paid a decent wage and let people pay their own way. I remember doing exactly that when given the opportunity.

Minimum wage hasn’t even come close to following the cost of living either.

At some point, things will collapse. People won’t have money to buy the stuff that make the rich rich, poverty leads to further moral collapse of society. People fall farther behind and become more hopeless. Parents aren’t home with the kids because they can’t afford to be.

I’m tired of people bragging about supporting family values while also supporting legislation that tears families apart due to financial circumstances.
 
The current minimum wage is only sustainable as long as the US government is willing to subsidize businesses paying their employees below the cost of living. Many of the people making minimum wage could not survive if they were not getting handouts from the government. Raising minimum wage to the point that people can actually survive on it without working 80 hours a week will reduce the number of people getting handouts from the government. Even conservatives are starting to support it as they realize that this means the government would be giving fewer people handouts and less handouts over all.

Yes, it is true that according to the CBO less than 19% of the wage increase will go to families making below the federal poverty line however in much of the country there is no way you can live off of the federal poverty line without the government giving you money. The nationwide median monthly rent for a one bedroom studio apartment is ~$770 which is 4/5th of the poverty line for one person, you can’t live like that. Even if you make double the poverty line (2000 hours a year at $11.67) you still would have rent making up 2/5th of your budget.

What percentage of the people making the minimum wage are teenagers working part time? 12%, that certainly isn’t the majority or even close to it. What percentage are teenagers working any amount? 20%, still not the majority or even close to it.
I have a few questions (assume for discussion that new minimum wage is to be $15):
  1. There are a number of jobs that require specialized training that pay around $15 right now. What will happen to those jobs if other jobs with less skills required pay the same? (For example: Electrician’s apprentices make $13-15 per hour…have to work outside in the hot sun or freezing cold…would the higher minimum wage make flipping burgers more attractive?)
  2. You imply that businesses owe a specific wage to employees based more on the needs of the employee and not the value they add to the business. Do you not think this mindset will encourage businesses to invest more in automation and make the unemployment situation worse? Is it immoral for a business to automate their processes at the expense of the eliminating jobs?
Curious.
 
I have a few questions (assume for discussion that new minimum wage is to be $15):
  1. There are a number of jobs that require specialized training that pay around $15 right now. What will happen to those jobs if other jobs with less skills required pay the same? (For example: Electrician’s apprentices make $13-15 per hour…have to work outside in the hot sun or freezing cold…would the higher minimum wage make flipping burgers more attractive?)
  2. You imply that businesses owe a specific wage to employees based more on the needs of the employee and not the value they add to the business. Do you not think this mindset will encourage businesses to invest more in automation and make the unemployment situation worse? Is it immoral for a business to automate their processes at the expense of the eliminating jobs?
Curious.
  1. Raising it to $15 nationally, especially immediately, is insane. I’d suggest raising the federal minimum wage to $9 over three years.
  2. I don’t suggest businesses owe anyone a specific wage, I’m in favor of companies not using the federal government to subsidize their cost of labor.
 
The current minimum wage is only sustainable as long as the US government is willing to subsidize businesses paying their employees below the cost of living. Many of the people making minimum wage could not survive if they were not getting handouts from the government. Raising minimum wage to the point that people can actually survive on it without working 80 hours a week will reduce the number of people getting handouts from the government. Even conservatives are starting to support it as they realize that this means the government would be giving fewer people handouts and less handouts over all.
Walmart effectively has the government subsidizing its business - walmart employees are major recipients of food stamps.

The distribution of wealth will need to change. Robotics etc will see demand for labour fall below the supply. How will the displaced millions survive If the economic model is unchanged? To what - I don’t know - but only paying people who work in a job paid according to the “value” of the work output seems as though it cannot work forever.
 
Walmart effectively has the government subsidizing its business - walmart employees are major recipients of food stamps.

The distribution of wealth will need to change. Robotics etc will see demand for labour fall below the supply. How will the displaced millions survive If the economic model is unchanged? To what - I don’t know - but only paying people who work in a job paid according to the “value” of the work output seems as though it cannot work forever.
Paying them more than the value of the work can’t work forever either.

Our government in the US is subsidizing virtually everone below the top 5%, we aren’t paying anywhere near what we’re receiving in government services. Hence the trillions in deficits.

As for demand for labour being less than supply-- we’re already there. We have the highest number of unemployed in the US ever. Although the unemployment rate has improved, it’s a bogus government statistic since it excludes folks who’ve stopped looking for work.

The distrubition of wealth does need to change-- we need to stop the progressive policies which have greatly increased the gap between the rich and poor. A book just came out that should be an interesting read, “The New Class Conflict”

usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/09/middle-class-mobility-oligarchs-wealth-distribution-column/15249645/

If we keep electing folks thinking they’re our leaders, vice our servants. Thinking them as the guy on my ‘team’ vice someone truly looking out for the best interests of the people, we’ll never address our problems. As I said before, CEOs will continue to be paid exorbitantly based on their ability to improve the company’s position based on their performance in getting considerations from the politicians. Unions will continue to break companies and the taxpayer through their ability to sway elections, get the government to intervene on their behalf.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top